Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

wetdogjp asks: "October 26th, 2004 marked the third anniversary of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (or USA PATRIOT Act, as it is more commonly known). While the Slashdot crowd can certainly muster the enthusiasm to debate its pro's and con's, I'd like to know: How has the USA PATRIOT Act affected you, personally? How has it interfered with your personal and professional life? Has this act influenced your Presidential vote?"

You left the part out about where they can come into your home, search your belongings, and remove belongings without telling you.

Thank goodness the laws had an expiration date on them. We have to remember, the number of terrorists convicted as a direct result of these infractions on our Bill of Rights remains a big 0.

To quote a small section I think is wrong:

"reasonably suspected based on credible evidence of engaging in terrorist acts or money laundering activities."

The "or money laundering activities" leaves an open invitation to abuse. This opens the uses of this law up to be used against just about anyone, not just terrorists. Take the abuses in vegas [clickability.com] and dope busts [nwsource.com]. None of this activity will save anyone from any terrorist.

While I feel it is important for the US to maintain a sense of law and order, I do not condone such an extreme set of laws to bust pot smokers and adult entertainers for their doings.

There are three problems with the Patriot Act. The first is obviously a suspension of due process. Within 6 months of passing it, the Bush administration was boasting that it had been used to to prosecute drug dealers. This has nothing to do with terrorism, and showed the real intent: a law which could be used to suspend normal due process in the investigation and prosecution of anyone, not just terrorists.

Secondly, there is the invasion of privacy. I really could care less if anyone read all my email or searched my computer. There's nothing incriminating. But this lack of concern only applies if the intent is criminal investigation. Political persecution is another matter. The Patriot Act is a perfect cover for a fascistic Star Chamber. If a group within the intelligence community decided that only those with the proper political views should rise to prominent positions, the Patriot Act would give them the clout to find out who does or doesn't hold these views. The persecution part is easy--just call a prospective employer and drop hints about an investigation into your background and affiliation with criminal organizations. The Patriot Act makes the Thought Police a real possibility. This is why law enforcement was required to get permission and provide notification. It permits ordinary citizens to catch the scent of this kind of activity, permitting correction by civil and political action. A crucial part of the checks and balances of the American system has been disabled.

The third danger is high noise and low signal. If the intelligence community becomes involved in the unneccesary surveilance of innocent civilians, the time, expense, and manpower devoted to this is diverted from genuine threats. The end result is less security, not more. In one of the debates, John Kerry mentioned thousands of hourse of surveilance tapes that have never been watched. Who is going to watch all of this? This is noise. In Britain, where cameras have been installed everywhere, their main usage is to bust people for traffic violations. I suppose that if a terrorist attack does occur, they can look at the tapes later and say, "Oh, there go the terrorists."

What the intelligence community needs to do is focus, get people on the ground, and stop the political infighting that is clogging the system. That means that people in the intelligence community should check their political opinions at the door when they come in, and stop pulling stunts like outing CIA operatives for political gain. The draconian measure currently being used won't help either; if you know a guy who is innocent but might have a lead, you're a lot less likely to give his name if you think he might get shipped to Guantanamo Bay just because he might be a couple steps removed from suspicious characters. And finally, they would have to get rid of John Ashcroft, the incompetent git who lost an election to a dead guy, shut down the FBI people who informed him of the suspicious group of Arabs training in a flight school in Florida, and who has detained 6000 people without finding a single terrorist. As long as he's in place, nothing else will matter.

Secondly, there is the invasion of privacy. I really could care less if anyone read all my email or searched my computer. There's nothing incriminating.

Ahh, correction bub. There's nothing incriminating, yet. They'll think of something. If you're reading Al-Jazeera, for example, then perhaps you're conspiring with terrorists. Or perhaps they don't particularily like some radio show you've downloaded and are sharing on a p2p app. Or perhaps you have "subversive" tendancies because you read "subversive" web content, such as slashdot?

First, you pass the privacy laws so you can spy on everyone, then you begin persecuting the most extreme first, then begin persecuting the less and less extreme while justifying it more and more. Perhaps it's in my interest to see violent drug merchants and suicide bombers go to prison, but it certainly isn't in my interest to see protestors go to jail, or coworkers. But those protestors are just as bad as the drug cartel or mafia, because of some likeness I have yet to hear of.

How do I know it's going this way? Started with islamic militants, moved onto US citizens with ties to said islamic militants, then moved to drug merchants and prostitutes, and now we've got wiretaps on people who go to and organize peaceful protests and the police ontop of buildings taking pictures of said protestors. Next stage seems to be shutting down websites such as indymedia's, among others, confiscating our weapons [packing.org], with probably a crapton of voting fraud and probably rioting to go with it. But that last part is just my prediction.

Agent Bob: Mostly just harmless anti-government raving Agent Alice. Chances of this dork ever belonging to any sort of revolutionary or terrorist group are pretty fucking slim I'd say. He'd fucking bore them to tears and they'd take him out and execute him themselves. I mean Jesus Christ he even encrypts his goddamned grocery list. He encrypts his personal journal. Like he needs to. Anyone reading it would stop from sheer boredom after a couple of paragraphs. The only thing that keeps me from shoving my Glock in my mouth and blowing my brains out is the porn. He may be a boring dork but at least he has plenty of stolen pornsite passwords. I run his packets though a filter and it snags out the images and video/audio streams and dumps them to a folder for me to peruse. Saves me from having to go find the stuff on my own.

Agent Alice: Pretty clever there Agent Bob since you're getting paid to monitor the subject rather than surf for porn. I bet you even named the folder 'Evidence' or someting like that didn't you.

Agent Bob: Of course I did.

Agent Alice: *chuckles* Keep up the good wood... er I mean work Agent Bob.

I dunno... Seemed to really excite J.E Hoover and the FBI he ran. Maybe asking people that ran into him (like the Martin Luther King or Kennedy families) might give you some insight into that question.

Let's put it this way - it creates a culture of fear. Of course, a lot of that is because of the hype and media manipulation by partisan entities. However, there is still a level of uncertainty among minorities.

Sundance has a film running on this theme that has a few illustrations

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out--because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out--because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Basically, that is the concern that causes some people to speak out about the Patriot Act.

First they came for the smokersBR>
and I did not speak out--because I was not a smokers.
Then they came for the red meat eaters
and I did not speak out--because I was not a red meat eater.
Then they came for the drinkers
and I did not speak out--because I was not a drinker.
Then they came for me--
and I said "Do whatever you want. I've been eating bean sprouts and drinking Soy milk for three years and I'm ready to jump in front of a Bus."

This would be the same country that was built on slavery, that had racial segregation and which treated blacks as second class citizens until only a few decades ago, that still treats its indigenous peoples as worse than second class citizens in many aspects, that has clear sexual discrimination in the workplace (women still earn less than men), that has clear homophobic discrimination in government (gays in the military), that has a President that wants to discriminate further against gays (gay marriage), that has illegal internment of anyone with even partial Japanese heritage (during WWII) and McCarthyism (when freedom of expression went out the window) in its recent past and has now resorted to illegal internment and religious McCarthyism again.

Yeah, because nothing could ever be shown to have been held unfairly against anyone at anytime in America's recent history, could it?

Firstly, nice to see you using the Anonymous Coward option for what it was designed for: letting people freely spout whatever they want to free from persecution. Ironically, it's that sort of anonymity and protection of freedom of expression that the PATRIOT ACT essentially undermines.

Having said that, I do prefer it if people are willing to stand up and be counted when voicing a viewpoint that's diametrically opposed to my own. If nothing else, it makes it easier to track a conversation back and forth if I know which messages are being posted by which individual. Funny though, there are some out there that would say that standing up and being counted just makes it easier to weed out unwanted voices of dissent, as many a political prisoner throughout history could testify.

Secondly, it's nice to see you skim over those parts of my post that you don't feel like addressing, presumably because you have no way of rationalising away those forms of unfair discrimination and abuses of power.

Yeah, ignore the fact that a country theoretically built on the principle that "all men are created equal" was practically built with the blood, sweat and tears of a subjugated people. Ignore the fact that the Constitution valued the life of a negro slave as 3/5ths of a man, or that the freed slaves never did get their 40 acres and a mule in compensation.

Ignore the fact that, as recently as a couple of generations ago, blacks couldn't drink from the same water fountain as whites, that blacks had to give up their seats to whites, that blacks couldn't share the same classrooms as whites and that lynchings were a way of life.

Ignore the fact that as badly as black Americans have been treated, that native American peoples have been treated far worse, from the days of Plymouth Rock to Custer to today.

Ignore the fact that a woman doing the same job as a man who's equal to her in every other aspect other than their genders is likely to be earning less than her male counterpart, and is far less likely to be promoted than her male colleague.

Ignore the fact that being gay in the US military is akin to being unfit for service. As if a gay man is any less capable of firing a rifle, driving a tank or flying a plane.

Ignore the fact that the 43rd President of the United States would actively seek to take rights away from people based purely on their sexuality, even where those rights have been specifically granted to them by one or more of the States.

Ignore the fact that nothing more than a person's ethnicity has been used in the past to justify their imprisonment. Japanese Americans and others who spent most of World War II illegally imprisoned in internment camps clearly didn't have any rights.

Ignore the fact that a person's beliefs, however privately they may be held, have been reason enough to hound them unendlessly. Ignore the fact that McCarthyism ever existed and, to put it mildly, that it flew in the face of free speech.

Ignore the fact that post-September 11th, hundreds of Americans of Middle Eastern descent were interned without any legal representation or even access to their families whatsoever. And, whatever you do, ignore Camp X-Ray and everything that's gone on there.

Ignore the racial and religious McCarthyism that's going on right now, where people are routinely discriminated against because their skin is the wrong colour or because of their faith.

And above all, ignore any point that espouses a viewpoint that you disagree with.

I made a list in response to comments by someone who clearly didn't believe that innocents could be unfairly targetted in the US. I made a list to educate him that, unfortunately, innocents can and have been unfairly targetted in the US several times.

The land of the free isn't supposed to be the land of the free for most of the people, it's meant to be the land of the free for all of the people.

If you're so uncomfortable with a short list of examples of your country's failings then you really need to examine why it is you feel the need to defend the indefensible.

" wacko... seriously, we live in a democracy as you're witnessing tonight - not a dictatorship"

First off, this is NOT a democracy, it is a representative republic. When is the last time YOU voted on a new law? If this was in fact a democracy, your vote would decide who is president, not the Electoral College's.

And since "sneak and peek" DOES NOT SUNSET, be prepared to not know for a long time to come. The gubmint has been trying to slip this one by us since well before 9/11. It was shot down at least three times in recent history. First it was the Cyberspace Electronic Security Act (CESA). [zdnet.com] Then the Clinton administration tried to push it through with a meth bill. [glil.org] When that failed, they tried to sneak in through as an amendment to a bankruptcy bill. [mapinc.org] All the while, the DOJ, led by Reno, was claiming to already have this power without any need for additional legislation in the Nicodemo Scarfo case.

Your only hope is to have it shot down in the Supreme Court now. Both parties have been pushing for this for some time. The People had already spoken. We consistently and emphatically told them 'hell no'. Three strikes, you're out, right? Oh no! Now the world's a different place with all the terrorists running about! Privacy is great an all, but the founding fathers could hardly anticipate terrorism! Get with the program you whining liberal pinkos! Now the FBI can sign their own warrant, sneak into your home, plant bugs and video cameras, and basically make Amendment 4 null and void.

May I make one suggestion; Would you be so kind as to change your name from FBI to KGB and give up any pretense? Thanks.

Democracy is meaningless unless there are checks and balances, which is why freedom-loving people are up in arms over the Patriot Act..

Absolutely. Although if you want real chill, look at GWBush's abuses of freedom and Due Process and then compare them to the powers of the Nazi Gestapo
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo [wikipedia.org] .

The PATRIOT Act also allows _any_ judge anywhere in the country to authorize a search of your house, no matter where you live. In other words, the feds need only find one single judge to rubber stamp their warrants and they have essentially unlimited power of searches in every state of the union. So just what good is the requirement of a warrant?

Under prior law, if the primary purpose of a search was to obtain "foreign intelligence information," the FBI could obtain a secret warrant through the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to conduct a physical search or wiretap without notifying the target of the search. The counter-terrorism law lowers the standard to permit the FBI to conduct a secret search or wiretap if intelligence surveillance is a significant purpose of the search. Thus, under the new law, law enforcement could conduct secret searches for the primary purpose of investigating criminal activity, with the auxiliary significant purpose of intelligence surveillance. This could circumvent the 4th Amendment's probable cause requirement for obtaining a search warrant.

Well, for one, you didn't answer what I asked, you didn't provide me with a section. But here is the section you're refering to:

SEC. 218. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

Sections 104(a)(7)(B) and section 303(a)(7)(B) (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)(B) and 1823(a)(7)(B)) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 are each amended by striking `the purpose' and inserting `a significant purpose'.

For 2, this doesn't change things. The FBI could still obtain taps against you under FISA. What this does is allow the FBI to persue a criminal prosecution if they find said information. Furthermore, it ignores two very important aspects.

1) If you were in court over this, and lawer worth his salt would argue that any basic criminal evidence found falls under this aspect of FISA

C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

And you would get said evidence suppressed.

2) It also ignores that there are a ton of hurdles to jump through to use any FISA tap against a US citizen.

"`(d) No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section."

So a warrant exists, and no one is allowed to mention it. They must keep it a "secret". Thus you could call it a secret warrant, though a "classified" warrant might be more accurate.

So that is the section of the patriot act which gives the government the authority to obtain a "secret" warrant.

So, you're saying that the intent will always match the usage? It never will be (and never has been) used for purposes other than combating terrorism? You're new on this world, aren't you?

Ever heard of a guy named J. Edgar Hoover? Richard Nixon? You think if you come home someday and find a bug on your phone you're going to be able to say into it, "Whoa, dude, I'm a musician, not a terrorist!" and they'll immediately come remove the bug?

Only terrorism, huh? How about this [reviewjournal.com]? How about this [sg1archive.com]? Or this [etaiwannews.com]?

Dude, face facts. It doesn't matter what the people who voted for the PATRIOT act intended, what matters is how it's used - or, in reality, abused. Fact is, it's being used EXACTLY the way Ashcroft and cronies intended - for non-terror-related investigations.

As Americans, we are responsible for perpetuating our civil liberties. According to your response, we shouldn't exhibit concern for the 0.1% of Americans that have been affected. That complacency would merely encourage the legislators to enact additional laws, and those laws would eventually affect 100% of the American population.

Well, I work at a Canadian bank and we've had to stop outsourcing alot of our contingency server hosting to the US. Given certain provisions and interpretations of the PATRIOT act, we cannot guarantee privacy of personal data to our customers -- as we must do as indicated by Canadian law. So now instead of having a primary datacentre in Toronto and a backup in South Carolina, we're moving everything out west to Alberta. We still run servers and call centres in the US, but all the data warehousing is now 100% Canadian.

So, if you work in IT, I suspect alot of people have been indirectly affected but don't realise it. I doubt you'll have SWAT teams bursting into your house and seizing your home PC due to using Kazaa, but the aggregate affect over the entire economy is tough to measure.

It has affected me.. I'm a foreigner. The patriot act has essentially revoked the visa-waiver program and now requires me to be finger-printed (and photographed) the next time I enter the US. I'm not going to be going there anymore. I'll spend my vacation dollars somewhere else.

The last time I was there (earlier this year), my wife and I had to undergo additional security screening at every single airport we used. I don't want to be treated like a criminal everywhere I go and I will avoid going there on business as well.

Actually, Hoover was collecting infromation on influential people far beyond the Nixon administration. Hey seemed to have a particular liking to Frank Sinatra & the rest of the rat pack, Lucy & Desi, and almost any other person who affliated with with said people.

This information, which he held in a special vault, was thought to be used to help him keep his reign over the FBI.

What type of data were in the files. Not just allegations of potential wrong doing, but sexual relations, money transactions, friends lists, and any other piece of gossip attached to the persons name.

This was done by a man, whose purpose of being brought into the position, was to clean-up the same type of corruption that he was doing. If you think these tactics have changed, then your far more trusting than me.

Shoot, even Orson Wells was trying to get Hoovers endorsement on '1984', hopefully to sell books.

Now on to the topic.

How has the Patriot Act affected me. Well to my knowledge, it hasn't. Then again, I doubt most of the Celeb's who Hoover investigated knew about the massive file built up on them. The said files, never we destroyed, until Hoover died, and his secretary thought it wouldn't really do Hoover any justice to have these files found by the public.

Also, since the Patriot Act isn't permament, I would believe law enforcement officials would be less likely to push the boundaries of the Act.

For Americans to be willing to be so trusting of a government that has not been very great at protecting the rights of its citizens, seems to be unAmerican.

I rather not have a President that will do anything to win the war on Terror, than a President that will win the war on Terror while upholding the aspects that make us Americans to begin with.

But the constitution is there in part to protect the minority from the majority (of course not on every issue but on many such as civil rights and liberties).

This is also much of the reasoning why I disagree with the politicians who decided to put gay marriage ammendments (and civil unions) on the ballots this year. The CLEAR majority of people are not gay and in many states tend to be against homosexuality. The ammendment shouldnt be set out for the majority to repress the rights of the minority, but it should be dealt with by the legislators (and then the courts) who were too pussy to decide so they stuck it on the ballot. And whatever happened to the full faith and credit clause? Maybe a state can decide to dissalow gay marriages to take place in THEIR state, but as I read the constitution, they would be required to honor gay marriages preformed in other states.

You'll have to come up with another word than "marriage" for homosexuals, because that word is taken, just as "white" can't reasonably and meaningfully be redefined to also mean "purple".

Ah, but there's a meaningful difference between white and purple. There's no meaningful differencde between homosexual and heterosexual partnership defined by word "marriage". Well, there is if you want the word to imply that there is a possibility for the male and female being biological father and mother for common children. But if you add that requirement, then for example sterile people could not get married by that definition. On the other hand, if you define marriage to mean a partnership defined in the Bible, don't be surprised if others disagree.

Marriage is very much a social term, and as social structures change, also the meaning of the term must change. Language lives with the society, words get new meanings etc. But since "marriage" is an archaic term that doesn't have a definite meaning in modern language and global community, it should be replaced for example with "registered parnership" in all legal text etc, to avoid misunderstandings and confusion about the core issue. "Marriage" should be reserved for religious contexts etc, where the ambiguiety would not matter since context would be more clearly defined.

Divorces or child traumatisation don't enter into this, nor whether marriages are right or wrong.

If one type of "registered partnership" is given preferential treatment by law because some people think it's the only "right" way to have such a partnership, and other types are denied same priviledges (eg tax breaks, divorce law protections), then it does enter into this. If somebody thinks it's wrong and causes a lot of undue suffering (which is does), why should they pay more taxes so that those "married" can pay less?

You'll have to come up with another word than "marriage" for homosexuals, because that word is taken, just as "white" can't reasonably and meaningfully be redefined to also mean "purple".

OK, for sake of argument, let's assume that you're assumptions are correct. I.e., Marriage:union(male,female)::White:rgb(255,255,255 ). Now, if several people decided that they wanted to use the word "white" to mean purple, (or "bad" to mean cool, or "phat" to mean good looking, etc.), would it seem logical to create a constitutional amendment defining white as being the presence of all colors insomuch as one is referring to light and the absence of all colors insomuch as one is referring to pigments?!? Would you feel that your white picket fence was under attack just because other people called their purple picket fences white? Would you feel that the White House itself was suddenly threatened?!? By your own analogy, can you see how inane a constitutional amendment defining marriage is?!?

And yes, I realize that you did not explicitly state that you either supported the amendment, or that you feel that marriages need to be "defended", but obviously there are some people who do feel this way.

It's not the "Patriot" Act; it's the "USAPATRIOT" Act.Please use the full acronym, or its full name: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism".The "USAPATRIOT" Act has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" is misleading.(Considering how the Act is being misused these days, even using its full name is somewhat misleading (How is copyright infringement "terrorism"?).)Personally, I pronounce it "the you sap at riot act" to avoid confusion.Other pronunciations are "the US ap uh TRY ot act" and (as Jar-Jar) "the YOUsa pah TR-R-RE-E-E at act".

As one poster pointed out, you wouldn't have caught Timothy McVeigh with your scheme.

You also wouldn't have caught the dude that burned all those churches in the South a few years back, nor any of the abortion-clinic bombers, nor would you have prevented the Columbine Massacre, not to mention the Kittamer Massacre.

Unfortunately, in the USA, we have cheapened citizenship so much that there is almost no difference in privileges and rights claimed by non-citizens and a citizens in the USA.

The declaration of independence sorta sets the stage. It is a legal document that declares our freedom from Britain. Personally, I'd like to see the Brits point out how we've failed to meet our promises in said Declaration, and that means ownership of the country reverts back to them. Wouldn't that be fun? Anyway, the Declaration of Independence says something about holding certain rights to be inalienable, and says *nothing* about "inalienable only for american citizens, but foreigners don't enjoy these rights in our land".

This country was built by immigrants. To treat foreigners like you would treat them is to spit on our own roots, and then, of course, we can never go home again.

Thats debatable. The language used in the constitution (and more importantly, the bill of rights) imply that most rights apply to non-citizens.

Most importantly regarding the current treatment of non-citizen "terrorists":

Amendment V : No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI : In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment XIV Section 1 : All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You'll note that at other points in the Constitution and its amendments, when it means citizen, it SAYS citizen.

The problem of terrorism is due to almost exclusively people who are not American citizens.

The 'problem' with terrorism is in its definition. Who says what a terrorist is, and who says what a terrorist does? Find that person, and you have found someone who stands to profit from both sides of the terror coin.

Terror'-ism' is a pop-psych brain-trick designed to herd the masses towards a desired point of view. It is not a valid argument for civilization, nor is it a valid argument for war. To treat 'terrorism' as if it were a new problem, and not as old as the hills in which we build our cities, is to attempt to re-define it for political gain in the new language landscape presented by the modern American empire, and its media.

Any foolish 'patriot' who falls into the trap of believing that someone who does not 'hate terrorism' is an enemy of their land, has become a victim in point of fact of terrorist ideology...

Terrorism is an ideology. Those who define that ideology are the true terrorists.

Well, perhaps it bears reminding you then that BOTH Bush AND Kerry came out in support of the suggested "part 2" of the original Patriot Act. In fact, when questioned about the details, Bush said he would be "largely in support of it, with a few changes" while Kerry said he was in total support of the bill, as-is.

I'm an American who is deeply disappointed that more people can't see past the B.S. that is our current 2-party system and place a vote for the Libertarians.

Insanity, as they say, is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.....

The problem is they go too hardcore and also often act like assclowns. I mean if you asked me what party I was, I'd have to say Libertarian. Their general views seem to match my general views on the majority of issues. Problem is the party itself gets all extreme about them, and that's just not a way to break in to the current system.

Then they also pull stupid ass stunts that make them look immature. In Arizona, they got an order to show cause as to why they were excluded from the debates. Now they actuall

Thank you! You are absolutely correct... The LP's problem is that they sell 1 "Big Libertarian Package" as the solution to everything -- as if free markets are a miracle elixir.

Well, for the most part, free markets *are* close to a miracle elixir,:-) but good luck convincing everybody else of that. The LP needs to sell their stance in pieces at a time, being staunch and principled when it counts, and moderate at others.

IMO, Arnold Schwarzenegger is as close to a Libertarian as anybody has ever elected to significant office (Ron Paul aside, although I think Ah-nold actually is more powerful in his position). True, he's not libertarian on gun control and his support of Bush is disheartening, but otherwise, he exhibits some rather libertarian traits [freeliberal.com].

But Schwarzenegger is not a big-'L' Libertarian. He realizes he cannot sell full drug legalization to voters, so he instead sells marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes. He can't sell privatization of most govn't functions to people, so he sells the easier privatizations first. He attempts to fund the govn't in a relatively low-tax way, e.g. via his $15b bond issue.

Like Ronald Reagan, the CA governor he seems to emulate (but with a deeper streak of social liberalism), Arnold sells to the public a package of strong (but not extreme) fiscal conservatism in the face of "economic girly-men", social tolerance, and sunny Reagan-style optimism.

Personally, I think the Libertarian Party ought to emulate Schwarzenegger if they want to break their current Presidential popular-vote record of 1% (in 1980, with Ed Clark, who eventually founded the Cato Institute). Of course, the LP, being run by Randroids left over from the 1960s when "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" were big hits are still the ones running the show -- and Randroids, of course, don't compromise.

So we're stuck w/ the LP of today until the damn idealistic Randroid old farts leave.

Based on what admittedly-little (not being a CA resident after all) I know of Schwarzenegger, I would *gladly* vote for him for President on either a Republican or Libertarian ticket (of course, this would require a change the Constitution - which is pretty unlikely). If he were running for President today in place of Bush, no doubt in my mind, I would vote for Schwarzenegger, as would many Americans, I believe... but as it stands, I voted Badnarik, and most Americans will likely vote for Bush (the polls appear to be shaping up that way). *sigh*

My *ideal* Presidential candidate would be my favorite moderate libertarian and economic deity, Milton Friedman. But alas, he has no interest in actually running for office, and at his present age of 92, he's really too old now anyway. But Schwarzenegger is, by Arnie's own statements, basically one of the intellectual offspring of Friedman's books ("Free to Choose"). Fortunately, it seems to show too...

The most frustrating and scary part of the Libertarian party and/or people claiming to belong to it is their uncompromising stance on the hallowed "Free Market".
A handy example is the belief that, left to its own devices, Microsoft wouldn't choose to crush the life out of any and all competition by fair play or foul.
The fact that, at least publicly, the Libertarians admit to *no* exceptions either in theory or in practice is impossible to comprehend. The free market is a great theory but reality doesn't allow any theory to flourish unchanged.
The idea that *all* problems stem from interference by government rather than from greed leaves me wary.

Economy and jobs: Raising minimum wage ~40% in 2 years will cause the unemployment rate to skyrocket. If I recall, Kerry's plan is to raise minimum wage to $7 from about $5.30 or so by 2007. I'm thinking someone forgot to tell him that yes, those few people left with jobs will be paid more, but you'll have about 40% fewer people currently at the minimum wage level employed. Or, a lot more people will be paid under the table. That's not to s

I have not been personally affected by the existance of the PATRIOT act as of yet.

However, in 5-10 years if the PATRIOT act is still around, I believe things will change greatly. Once the US stops chasing people around the globe these very convenient changes in rights and law will be used against everyone equally.

Not to mention: I doubt it's exactly fair to ask this question here, because anyone who actually *has* been affected by the PATRIOT act probably no longer finds themselves in a position where freedom of speech or the ability to access devices for global communication are available to them.

Do you really believe that if Bush wins today there will be any end to the "war on terror"? It is an unwinnable conflict that can be used as a bogyman to scare the American people into voting Republican until the economy totally collapses.

The most telling thing I have ever read on/. was the article somebody linked to in their sig which listed all of the American presidents since 1900 ordered by GDP growth and change in unemployment rate (IIRC) what I do remember was that the worst Democrat had a better

but they knew it was their duty to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant and an enemy that treacherously attacked Pearl Harbor. It was not the Republicans that were in power then. Now, when the hour has come to get rid of an enemy that treacherously attacked in NY and Washingto DC, many are balking at the cost.

Nobody is balking at the cost of doing this.

What every patriotic American (i.e. ones who actually do their duty to be informed citizens rather than subjects) balks at is the fact that we are involved in a war in a country that didn't have a damn thing to do with the attacks on us while Bush is using our fucking tax dollars to help fund commercials promoting the country that did actually attack us (Saudi Arabia).

It's really dishonest of you to try and compare the fiasco we are involved in to WW2.A valid comparison would have been if Japan bombed us and then we invaded China.

Freedom has always been costly in terms of lives and money and it seems that the younger generation is less willing to pay the price.

The younger generation is no less willing to pay the price for freedom.What they are less willing to do is to die to provide benefits to GE, Halliburton, Bechtel, and various other war mongering corporations while providing no benefit to themselves or their country.

They are not willing to die for the lie that the Iraq war is. We are there not to promote freedom or democracy or any of the other lies that only the most ignorant could possibly believe. Now it's clear that only an extremely ignorant person could believe that because it isn't even the reasons we were given.So many people in this country are so cowardly and ignorant that they have completely blocked out the fact that the only reason the Iraq war had any support in the first place is that Bush flat out lied that they posed an immediate and immenent threat to the US. Now this has been proven to be a lie and it has been proven that Bush knew full well that it was a lie.

The only reasons that he currently has any support at all are that too many people have a greater loyalty to their party than to their country. I.E. they are so incredibly cowardly and lacking in integrity that they can not admit that they were wrong and do the honorable thing.The only other major reason that Bush has any support is because of all the people in this country who think that they are Christian, but are too ignorant to even know what that word means. Anybody who thinks that Bush is a Christian is dumber than a bag of rocks.

What these people really want and Bush has given them is somebody to promote their petty ignorant hatreds and prejudices. He gives them somebody who tells trhem that it is good for them to impose their beliefs on others at the point of a gun regardless that that is directly contrary to what this country at one time stood for.

So it really isn't surprising that not many people want to go die to help tear down every good thing this country used to stand for.

The really sad thing is that these ignorant hate monhgering religious zealots are exactly what this country was founded to get away from.They always talk about how America was founded by Christians who were trying to escape persecution, but they ignore the simple fact that makes the pseperation of church and state an absolute necessity for a free society to exist:

The Christians were the ones doing the oppression in the first place.Now they are doing it here and now. It's sad that they are so ignorant and deluded that they fail to recognize that religious rule has never once in the history of the world led to anything good.

I used to be apathetic about government and politics. Uniniterested in 'what those wanks in Washington were doing'. The first inkling of a problem was the CDA (Communications Decency Act), which was scary, but okay, some bad legistlation is bound to happen.

Then Bush and his cronies moved in, and anything even approaching preservation of civil liberties, the Constitution, or... okay, lets be honest, our dignity... went totally out the window in pursuit of idealism and Empire building.

I'm ashamed that the coutnry I live in could put a man like George Bush in power, could support a congress that would ratify such onerous legislation as the Patriot Act, and, what's worse, even consider re-electing this man. (As I type this, the US elections are still undecided).

Then Bush and his cronies moved in, and anything even approaching preservation of civil liberties, the Constitution, or... okay, lets be honest, our dignity... went totally out the window in pursuit of idealism and Empire building.

You may not have noticed, but the USA Patriot Act passed 98-1 in the Senate, 356-66 in the House, meaning the vast majority of Democrats voted for it too. If you hate the Act, you can equally blame the Democrats for whatever ills it brings.

As a Canadian, you would expect that it has NOT affected me. But in the light of recent news [canoe.ca], I'm not so sure anymore. I'll get flamed for this, but why should your government Patriotism give them every right in MY country? Canadians are patriotic too, love they country, want to protect it, etc... did we ever invade USA citizens privacy like this? Sure, its to fight terrorism... but be careful not to damage your relations with your allies by doing so (if its not already done, with France and the Iraq war).

Most of us sane Americans don't believe there are too many patriotic aspects to said act.

Sure, its to fight terrorism... but be careful not to damage your relations with your allies by doing so (if its not already done, with France and the Iraq war).

Totally agree, but you'd better not argue that with a stanuch right winger as they would probably tell you something like "Other countries have no control over us!" or similar spin, much like what we saw at the second debate over the global test comment.

1) President Bush empowered himself to take the civil liberties away from US Citizens. The last president I remember really hacked away at rights explicitly stated in the US Constitution was John Adams (correct me if I'm wrong). Bush claims that it will only be used on terrorists, but merely being accused of being one automatically strips you of your civil liberties. Declared guilty before proven innocent. Even Timothy McVeigh still received a lawyer and a trial.

2) President Bush guarded nothing in Baghdad except the oil refinery. I truly believed up until I read about this that "liberating" Iraq was not because of the oil, but because Saddam was hiding something up his sleeve. I tried to convince everyone I could in Egypt that it wasn't about the oil.

Lincoln - During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and frequently imprisoned Southern spies and sympathizers without trial as well as imprisoned Newspaper editors and martial law was declared in cities like Baltimore.

Wilson - During World War I, Congress curbed civil liberties with sweeping censorship and antisedition laws. In 1919 the Attorney General, A. Mitchell Palmer, responded to a bombing at his home by authorizing raids in 33 cities and arresting 6,000 people, most of them immigrants, some of them citizens, on suspicion that they were Communists or anarchists. Soon after declaring war on Germany and its allies in 1917, Congress ruled that the U.S. mail could not be used for sending any material urging "treason, insurrection or forcible resistance to any law." It punished offenders with a fine of up to $5,000 and a five-year prison term. The government soon banned magazines including THE MASSES and THE NATION from the mails for expressing anti-war sentiment.

FDR - Japanese American Internment, German American Interment, Italian American Internment. On Feb. 19, 1942, Roosevelt signed an executive order authorizing the secretary of war or military commanders designated by him to establish "military areas" from which "any or all persons" could be removed. In 1942 the Supreme Court ruled that Roosevelt's military commissions were constitutional when used to try eight Nazi saboteurs for violating the laws of war, spying and conspiracy.

Truman - National secrecy laws, CIA establishment

Clinton - The copyright laws, President Clinton asked Congress for the authority to conduct "roving wiretaps''--that is, wiretaps not on a particular phone but on any phone used by a particular individual--without court approval. Although that specific provision did not pass, the 1996 terrorism bill did expand the government's wiretapping authority. During the Clinton administration, HUD began investigating and threatening community activists who objected to shelters and public housing units in their neighborhoods. In New York, Berkeley, Seattle, and other places HUD enforcers demanded correspondence, minutes of meetings, flyers, and lists of contributors on the grounds that the activists were engaged in illegal racial harassment.

At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he (Bush Sr.) was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.

So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretence of fighting terrorism.

It's made me aware of government intercepts in ISP's, so I've setup postfix, cyrus, courier and sendmail wherever I use them to use SSL whenever possible. I also finally bought a real cert (from InstantSSL for $50).

I suppose Carnivore and Echelon were there before Patriot but it didn't wake me up as much.

It bothers me personally and politically, yet there was no candidate I could vote for who was against Patriot and for Preemption. In the end, Patriot was lower on my scale. You could say I like my terrorism policy like my operating systems - preemptive rather than cooperative.

I'm firmly of the opinion that no matter what we do to try to protect the country there is a way around those measures. Short of locking everybody in their houses there are opportunities for terrorists to strike.

So we shouldn't step on _any_ civil liberties of Citizens and we should be on the offensive.

What are we supposed to do, wait until a few million people _are_ affected by bad laws before suggesting they are not in our best interests? That sort of thinking got us the War on Drugs and millions of citizens spending time in prison and law enforcement constantly expanding its scope to try to enforce fundamentally unenforcable laws. Most americans weren't affected by the Alien and Seditions Acts. Most americans in the north weren't affected by slavery laws. Most germans weren't affected by the Nuremburg laws. Just because it doesn't screw over >50% of the population in the first 3 years of its existence doesn't mean that it shouldn't be fought. Particularly when the law itself demands that any uses and abuses be kept hidden from the public.

Last February, I had just returned home from the mall and was parked outside of my apartment when I got a call from a friend of mine who was waiting for me in the lobby. Just as he was walking outside to say hello, all the people who looked as though they were walking home from work suddenly turned on us and whipped out badges. These were members of the Secret Service Police (in charge of money fraud etc) and the Anti-terrorism task force.

My friend was taken away in about 5 minutes to some secret underground interrogation room, and didn't come back for about 3 hours.

I was questioned at the scene about any knowledge I had about blank checks and my friend's connection to terrorist organizations.

The police asked to search my car, and when I refused, I was suddenly surrounded by members of the SWAT team, dogs, machine guns and all.

They searched my car with me on the ground at gun point (during rush hour in downtown DC, no less!), and needless to say, found no fake checks.

When all was said and done, the man in charge of the Anti-Terrorism Task Force/Secret Service Police shook my hand and thanked me for doing a great service to America, and a great service for freedom. My pleasure.

Apparently, someone with a grudge against my friend had called a contact at the treasury dept. and told him that we were all involved in a money laundering scheme. They take those threats pretty seriously.

Oh yeah, they also stole the chinese food I had brought home for lunch:(

case $Election_Outcome in
Kerry )
echo "The Patriot Act has had a significant impact on my life. Some of it has been indirect, like the Wiccan friend (who was my friend before she was even Wiccan) in another part of the country who warned me that knowing her might jepoardize my clearance...it already had for some of her other friends. And the only reason why is because of her affiliation with a Wiccan coven. I'd point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that Wicca is a valid religion, and that covens are eligible for tax-exempt status as such.";;

Bush )
"Ah, the glorious Patriot Act! It has done nothing but brought cheer and happiness to me since it was first conceived. My papers are in order, ja?";;

I have to go through a blood-borne pathogens training seminar twice a year where I work. Despite not working with blood or infectious agents, I will be required to sign a statement saying I will agree and comply with the Patriot Act. Refusal to sign will apparently lead to non-compliance with safety training, which will lead to no grant money! The NIH will not authorize grants for researchers who do not have the proper protocols and properly trained staff (ie safety training).

Will this really affect me in any meaningful way? Probably not. However it's still a little weird.

The CENSORED act has not affected ma at all. I work at CENSORED and we have no CENSORED. I have noticed no difference in my life at CENSORED since theCENSORED act came to be. I can even process CENSORED reports and look at all the files in the CENSORED. I do not believe that the act has caused any censorship or CENSORED on the part of CENSORED . Any on who think they are affected adversely onlt need to lodge a complaint with the bureau of CENSORED. You can e-mail them at CENSORED@CENSORED . You can also reach them via the url www.CENSORED.CENSORED
Respectfully,
CENSORED

The USAPATRIOT act may not have affected me in any material way, but it has affected me in some very serious ways, namely a loss of faith in some of the basic principles that make up my idea of what America IS.

By allowing expanded powers to the investigative branches of the government with only minimal oversight by the judicial branch, the act undermines my protections under the 4th amendment. Sneak-and-peak warrants have been allowed under the FISA and criminal statutes since the late 60's, with probable cause, and with bench approval.

Now, however, the standards have been lowered to a point that the average citizen can have their private records and personal affects searched (and bugged) for, what would have been in the past, only minimally suspicious behaviors. Imagine, for instance, that you are a student researching a paper for a comparative religion class that takes you into the realm of researching reasons, justifications, and methods used by suicide bombers/terrorists. With only the barest of oversight, the government now has the right to partake of surveillance that would have been considered "beyond the pale" only 3 years ago.

My biggest complaint, however, has nothing to do with the above. It has to do with the "Enemy Combatant" detainments that have been an ongoing problem in the judicial system. Under the 6th amendment, we have the right to a speedy and public trial. By right, we have for the last 200+ years enjoyed this protection under the bill of rights. Now, though, if the government can come up with a reason to label you an enemy combatant, they can hold you for an indefinite time in an undisclosed location, with no access to legal counsel.

At one point in the past, I was a Muslim. I frequented a mosque that I discovered (many years after the fact) was frequented by "unsavory" types that were recruiting people to fight in one of the earlier Palestinian Intifada's. Do I now have to forever look o'er my shoulder to see if I am being followed? Maybe.

Both of the above situations are also are protected by the 14th amendment (due process), but this due process has been undermined by the USA Patriot act.

How can we truly call ourselves the land of the free when we allow our constitutional freedoms to be circumvented by acts of congress?

The Patriot act has made me decide to never go to the US. There's a lot of stuff I'd like to see and do there, but I will never enter the US as long as Bush is in power and legislation like the DCMA and the Patriot Act are law.

The US Patriot Act has caused me to fear my government even more than normal. Now, when I work on my projects, even if I am not actually a terrorist [wifimaps.com], I worry that I may be labled as such. Is this the way a law abiding citizen should feel at home?

I'm a high school senior. This summer, I was in Ithaca visiting Cornell. After our visit to the campus, we decided to do some exploring of the area, because it's really quite lonely up there but also quite quaint. We figured we could find a cute little town down by the lake there. We decided to check out Aurora on Route 90.

Well, we turned down another road by accident. It was unmarked and at a 10% grade downhill. We wound up at the lake, certainly, but not in Aurora. We found ourselves at a power plant. Obviously, we knew we were in the wrong place, so we stopped.

My dad suggested I get out of the car and take some pictures. The sun was setting and the area was terribly scenic. At this time, another car, a dark sedan that had been following us down the road, made a quick turnaround. I proceeded to get out of the car and take some pictures. My dad called me back, so I ran back to the car, and we drove off. That was at 7:38 pm.

Fast forward to 11pm. My family is at the hotel, and my sister and I are trying to go to sleep. For reference, we have two adjoining rooms, one for my parents and one for me and my sister. Somebody bangs on my parents' door saying he's with the state police. My sister and I heard it and we assumed it was a joke.

It wasn't a joke at all. The New York State Police really came into my parents' room and started questioning them. My sister and I had sort of gotten up and were listening through the door. Keep in mind that at this time I'm in my pajamas and without my contacts. The officers notice someone next door, and we come into my parents' room.

The State Police were investigating a possible terrorist threat: me.

My dad had been talking for me, but there were inconsistencies in his story. Obviously. He wasn't the one taking the pictures after all. I didn't remember exactly what happened, as in which picture I took in what order, because it wasn't as if I thought I would need to know that.

THe officers want to see my camera, so my dad goes and gets it from the car. I'm in tears, because here I am, half blind and not dressed, being accused of being a TERRORIST.

I showed them my camera, and they thought it was digital, but it's not; it only appears so because it's got a large LCD status display on the back. (Thank goodness I stick to film, because I don't want to think about what might've happened to me had it been a digital camera.)

The entire scene at the plant had been recorded by a security camera, and the way the other car was there coupled by how I ran back to the car and how quickly my dad turned around made our behavior seem very suspicious.

The police told me that that power plant supplies one-sixteenth of the power to the East Coast and that knocking it out would leave millions without power for months. My case was especially worsened by the fact that there had been a legitimate threat against another area plant that same day. They told us we were lucky they found us: they'd had to stop a bulletin going out to the whole East Coast looking for our car. If they hadn't, the next day we would have been surrounded by 20 state police cars with guns to our heads. If that's not a threat, I don't know what is.

They wanted my film. I used up the last shot on the roll just by taking a picture of the floor, and then I handed the film over. The fact that I had fourth amendment rights never occurred to me. I was quite frankly scared out of my mind. Other people I've told said they would have refused, but my life had just been threatened. I think that's the part they don't get.

So they took my film and left. I couldn't sleep for quite a while and was quite visibly upset through the next day.

I'm still paranoid about police.

It took me quite some time to realize that I had done nothing wrong. There were no signs of warning or anything near the power plant. No "Authoriz

I had a similar experience this spring when visiting the otherwise nice state of Louisiana.I had been recording our trip by taking pictures of all kinds of random stuff that we saw, and one day we saw some cool-looking oil refinery by the roadside. I stopped, got out my camera and snapped a pic of it, then continued the drive. ONE MINUTE later there was a police car behind us; they made us stop and forced me to erase that picture. Being an immigrant with less than zero rights in this country, I complied.The absurdity of the whole situation (real terrorists would not have stopped, and would have just taken a picture, or even better, found it on the web on the official homepage of the plant) didn't really get to the cops.Or perhaps, this is all just part of the game. Nobody really cares about the terrorists, and the government is simply and blatantly trying to scare people into submission.

So where was the PATRIOT Act used?
Nothing that happened was done differently because of a FEDERAL act, it was the STATE police.
The police could before the PATRIOT act ask you questioned, before the PATRIOT act they could ask you to let them see or have something. So how has the PATROIT act affected you?

1) Personally: It offends my sense of civil-libertarian principle. The law leaves Americans less-free to go about their business unmolested by the hand of Big Brother. Restrictions on freedom should always be as few as reasonably possible, and the PATRIOT Act certainly doesn't qualify as a justifiable reasonable restriction on freedom in my book. It didn't 3 years ago, and it still does not.

2) Professionally: Having worked in the financial industry, the PATRIOT Act made my employer more-transparent to the govn't for terrorist-spotting purposes. This is a drain on our system resources and therefore, our productivity, and therefore, our efficiency, and therefore, our profits, and therefore, my income. So the PATRIOT Act has regulated away some (perhaps admittedly-small) amount of my income -- and for what?

Nothing except freedom-reduction and inefficiency, as far as I can tell.

Here's a better question: how many terrorists have we caught thanks *solely* to the PATRIOT Act? If we are to justify the law as useful for catching terrorists, then we had better *judge* it based on how many terrorists we catch -- NOT whether we have each been harmed by it. After all, a law that does nothing is a useless law wasting space on the shelves of law libraries across America, continuing to displace liberty in the name of security.

Indeed, true liberty is a lawyer's empty bookshelf.

And if the PATRIOT Act has been unsuccessful in catching terrorists, then the law has failed and we damn well had better repeal it for freedom's sake (and then proceed to find a better solution to the terrorist problem).

Look, just because the law hasn't affected somebody *yet* doesn't mean it *never* will. Take the tax cuts of the Reagan era -- it wasn't a week before Democrats were saying "OMG, it's not working!" But the process isn't that fast -- and in the end, the tax cuts worked.

So too will it be with the PATRIOT Act -- we may not have each been severely violated by it yet, but it is likely we will, sooner or later -- just like the DMCA. Therein lies the problem with the PATRIOT Act, the DMCA, the McCain-Feingold Act, or any other law: sooner or later, it comes back to bite you in the ass. But few people realize it until it's too late...

Because of PATRIOT Act, I have completely cut all involvement with America down to whatever interaction happens on the Internet with a few Americans I know, and a close circle of friends I occasionally stay in touch with and see when they travel the world.

I no longer work with Americans. I no longer travel to the U.S. for business. (trade shows &etc) I'm not taking any chances; the U.S. has become a techno-militaristic fascist state, and no longer represents to me, a member of the so-called "free world", the bastion of freedom and expression that it once did.

The U.S. is a Cop, and you don't hang with cops if you don't have to. And if you have to, you don't want to.

"The U.S. is a Cop, and you don't hang with cops if you don't have to. And if you have to, you don't want to."

Well, junebug, here's a little life tip for you. It's good to know cops, it's good to be buddies with cops. For several different reasons. You will get a faster response time if the cops know you if you should need their help. You have an 'inside' to the local law enforcement goings-on. Criminal elements will be more likely to stay away from you and yours.

So, don't hang out with cops if you want. Perhaps you have something to hide, perhaps not.

A lot of people have been quick to respond that it hasn't affected them. Howthe hell do you knowthat? Many provisions of the PATRIOT Act prevent you from learning that it has been used against you. Just because you haven't had US Marshals knocking on your door doesn't mean you haven't had your library record analyzed. Just because you haven't been detained without charges doesn't mean that more of your tax money isn't going to extra surveilance that is ethically questionable and wouldn't be legal without the PATRIOT Act.

Despite the fact that the USAPATRIOT Act was taken straight out of the "How to Create A Police State Tutorial" there have been some positive impacts. Investigative agencies were clearly trying to do their jobs with their hands tied. The trick is to find a way for them to do their job, while still keeping a proper system of checks and balances in place. The PATRIOTACT probably does a poor job of this, but hopefully in its' new form it will do more to protect citizens rights and provide them the appropriate due process. The patriot act has done a lot to make us safer. The 9/11 hijackers were suspected terrorists were under investigation before the incidents, and had the PATRIOTACT been in place at that time, the plane hijackings would never have occured.

Of course, any positive effect that the P-ACT may have will in the long term be counteracted by the extreme seeds of hate that the Illegal War in Iraq is creating among Muslims (actually more than just the Muslims, pretty much everyone will hate us soon). In the long haul, this administration will make us LESS safe.

On June 9, 2002 Jose Padilla--a.k.a. Abdullah Al Muhajir--was transferred from control of the U.S. Department of Justice to military control. Since that time, Padilla has been held in a navy brig in South Carolina.

Padilla has not been charged with a crime, and does not have access to a lawyer in his detention.